All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 25, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:36
November 25, 2010, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
This is the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Great to have you here.
Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
The email address, lrushbaugh at EIBNet.com.
President Obama is now in the middle of his opening statement at his press conference.
Somehow, coincidentally scheduled for 1 o'clock Eastern Time today.
The president is now, and I got to listen to a little bit of it prior to this program's second hour beginning.
And he said he called McConnell.
And he said he called Boehner last day.
He said, we're going to have to work together.
Which is exactly what Boehner and McConnell want to hear, by the way.
It's what they expect to hear.
They're both of the belief that Obama will have to move to the center.
That Obama will read the tea leaves of the election and understand what's happened here.
The American people have rejected him.
And that he's going to have to move to the center to get things.
This is what they hope happens.
Obama also said there are things that we cannot compromise on.
He said there are things that we will not compromise on.
I just, look at, let me lay it out here.
I don't care what he says in this press conference.
What he says in this press conference is all BS, and it's designed to give everybody in the Republican Party what they want to hear.
And then he's going to leave.
He's going to go to India.
When he comes back, there's going to be none of this.
He's not going to compromise.
This guy is committed to his agenda, and he's not going to abandon it.
He doesn't think.
In fact, he's set up now.
I will bet you Obama's disappointed that he didn't lose the Senate.
My prediction way back when, I think Obama was happy to lose the House and was looking forward to losing the Senate because he wants to run against Republicans in 2012.
Well, now he's not going to be able to run only against Republicans.
He's going to have a bunch of Democrats in the Senate.
They're going to run that show.
And he's not going to be able to intellectually, honestly say the Republicans are the party of no, which the press is going to, he's going to do it anyway, but he's not going to be able to get away with it.
But this is a giant setup.
Do not doubt me.
I know this guy.
I know the kind of person he is.
I know because of what he believes.
I know liberals.
I know socialists.
I know Marxists.
I know exactly how they do things.
I know people that understand and love Solowinski.
I understand exactly what the tactics are.
I know how they go about achieving what they want.
What do you mean, how can he pivot on health care?
What is there to pivot on health care about?
He's got health care.
When the Republicans are trying to repeal some of it, well, he's not going to go for that.
What do you mean?
He's not going to pivot on health care.
Of course, there's no common ground between Republicans and Obama unless the Republicans decide they want to have some.
There is no common ground.
That's the best way to describe this.
What do we have in common with the guy?
I don't have anything in common with him in terms of his view of this country, where he wants to take it, versus what I think it is and where it should go.
Nothing in common there.
Pivot on health care?
That's one of the things he's checked off on the list.
Okay, got that.
He's going to dare them to repeal it.
He's going to run around saying, hey, you know what I did?
I have given you free health care.
First time in American history.
You're healthcare free.
And look at what these people want to do.
They want to take it away from me.
That's what he's going to do.
He's not going to say, oh, man, I lost.
I'm going to have to agree with Republicans on maybe not funding some of it or maybe delaying some of it or maybe repealing some of it.
We actually think that's going to happen.
Obama's going to start the minute that starts, the minute the Republicans make a move on health care, he's going to call another presser.
He's going to act shocked and outraged after all the hard work, after all of these decades, first time in history, only industrialized nation not to have national health care.
We finally got it with him.
I've finally given people $2,500 less premiums every year.
I have given away free health care.
And now look, these Republicans just say they won an election.
They come in here and take it all away from you.
It ain't about me, folks.
It ain't about me.
They're going to take your health care away from you.
That's exactly what he's going to do.
And of course, the Republicans are going to, no, we don't want to take anybody's health care away from.
No, no, no, but you do too.
Yes, you do.
It's exactly what you're doing.
That's exactly why you want to run the election.
There's no compromise here.
That's why I said the heavy lifting begins now.
Now, folks, it might be tempting to watch the Democrats divide themselves.
Now, and make no mistake, the Clintons are calculating.
There's blood in the water.
The Clintons are taking the temperature of the blood.
They're taking the temperature of the water.
They're looking at it.
The more blood in the water, the better.
With losses of this magnitude, and this was a wipeout.
This was a T-NAMI.
With losses of this magnitude, Clinton Democrats will not be able to resist the political blood in the water.
Obama is a failure.
Let me draw you an analogy.
By the way, I want to give a little shout out here.
Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator has a very long piece today.
I only learned that he was writing this piece two days ago.
I did not participate.
He didn't talk to me.
I didn't contribute to it at all.
It's called The Winner, Rush Limbaugh.
We've linked to it at rushlimbaugh.com.
It is an amazing piece.
It recounts the last two years.
He calls what happened last night a rush slide as opposed to a landslide.
Jeffrey Lord, American spectator, the winner, Rush Limbaugh.
Let me take you back to the Harry Reid phony soldier thing.
Another incident where I did not cower.
Remember, they tried to drum up this notion I was attacking media or soldiers, military people, claiming they were liars, phony soldiers.
All of it was trumped up and made up.
Harry Reid writes a letter to the president of my syndication partner, Clear Channel, and DeMark Mays, and demands that I apologize.
The most powerful man in the U.S. Senate sends my syndication partner a letter demanding that he and I apologize.
This phony soldier business.
We put that letter up for auction on eBay as an example of authoritarianism, denial of free speech rights, intimidation, the kind of things the founding fathers wrote a constitution to prevent people in government from doing.
And of course, you know, the rest we ran the thing on eBay, and I promised to match whatever it ultimately got as a donation.
$2.3 million is what somebody paid for that letter.
So I had to match it.
The money went to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.
Now, wouldn't you think at the end of that that Harry Reid would be a little humble, realize, you know, I just had my lunch handed to me.
You would think that Harry Reid would go to the floor of the Senate and say, okay, you know what?
He went to the floor of Senate and took credit for it.
He went to the floor of the Senate and actually praised the guy he sent the letter to demanding my free speech rights be interrupted.
He tried to piggyback.
He tried to, in fact, take credit for the fact that so much money was raised because he wrote a letter.
Anybody thinks that Obama is going to do anything different?
Obama is going to somehow move and moderate and come our way and so forth.
These people, in no way, shape, manner, or form, are going to acknowledge one bit of achievement or accomplishment or allow one bit of credit to accrue to anybody but them.
No matter what is obvious, you and I would not have the guts to brazenly lie like that on such a national stage.
To Harry Reid and Barack Obama, it's parfaccours because they know they've got the media right behind them promoting it and even amplifying it.
So this business that there's going to be movement toward us from Obama, compromise.
Forget it.
Obama is a failure.
Last night's elections, yesterday's elections, put the exclamation point to it.
He was on the agenda.
His agenda was on the ballot.
He said so.
Obama is a failure.
This is no longer one man's prophecy.
This is no longer my opinion.
It's no longer my expressed desire.
It's a fact.
Obama's first team has already exited the White House.
And Pelosi is history.
All of Obama's number one aides, Rahm Emmanuel, they're gone.
Axelrod's leaving.
All the A-team, they're gone.
Heading back to Chicago, to the cave, wherever they're going back to.
Academia.
Pelosi, history.
The shortest speakership in history.
Ding-dong, which is dead.
The Senate has been weakened.
Obama has no momentum.
Zilch zero nada.
There is going to be a power struggle within the Democrat Party.
Obama's $200 million a day trip to India will only fuel the struggle.
Obama has not mesmerized and does not hold the Democrat Party in mesmerization.
He's not got everybody snowed any longer.
The Democrats know Obama's poison.
The Democrats know today that Barack Obama is a liability.
I doubt that you'll hear anybody on the Republican side saying what I'm saying to you today, but it's true.
Obama has lost his momentum.
There's going to be a power struggle within the Democrat Party.
Blood is in the water.
There are Democrats who think they would be a better president than Obama.
Yeah, Obama says we can work together on earmarks.
Work together on earmarks.
What does that mean?
How do you compromise when your avowed policy is to end them?
No earmarks.
If we go for earmarks, we lose.
If we compromise on earmarks, if we say, okay, you know, we'll do earmarks and we'll just do fewer of them.
And we'll have the overall expenditure total earmarks be less.
We're finished if we do that.
That's not what this election is.
This election is about ending earmarks.
This election is about ending gratuitous federal spending that benefits only the spender.
Work together on earmarks?
What kind of working together does it take to say there aren't going to be any anymore?
And do you think Obama holds that position?
I think Obama's position is no more earmarks.
Without earmarks, Harry Reid would be history.
Are you saying earmarks are history?
He doesn't want any earmarks.
Obama is saying right now he doesn't want any earmarks.
I don't believe him.
I don't believe him for a moment.
He's a Democrat.
A, they lie.
B, they survive on things like earmarks.
Obama's saying he doesn't want earmarks anymore, and that's where he's willing to compromise.
That's a trap.
He's setting it.
Bottom line here is there's going to be a power struggle within the Democrat Party.
This trip to India, not right.
The optics, the Obama regime, they're just not right.
The regime has been rejected.
The Obama agenda has been repudiated.
This was a wipeout.
The Democrats know this.
They will never say it publicly, folks.
They'll plotting for 2012.
You're not going to have public airs of disloyalty.
You're not going to have a Democrat Party publicly falling apart.
You might have some unnamed Democrats leaking to the Politico now and then or the Huffington Post elements of what they're going to do.
But my reason for saying all of this is the Republicans cannot rely on this dynamic to propel them to victory in 2012.
Do you realize if the Republicans had actually stood for something last night, in addition to just being against Obama, we would have won the Senate.
If the Republicans had advanced an ideological, philosophical-based agenda or platform or just an identity, here's who we are.
If they had simply taken to the airwaves, the television commercials, radio commercials, to draw the contrast between Obama and themselves, we would have taken the Senate.
The Republicans didn't want to rock the boat.
Republicans didn't want to make waves.
They saw Obama and the Democrats self-destructing.
And there is a school of thought that says when that's happening, get out of the way and let it.
When your enemy is committing suicide, don't throw him a lifeline.
So the Republicans calculated that now was not the time to get into a series of explanations who they are and what they are.
It was, in their mind, sufficient for people to know that they were not Democrats.
They were not Obama.
I'm simply saying, had they articulated who they are and this is what we're for, not just the pledge that they put forth, but sooner than, and I'm not talking about a contract with America, just articulate conservatism.
If they would have just said, here's what we believe, this is where it's gone off track and it's we're going to put it back on, they would have won the Senate.
But hindsight is hindsight.
My point is they can't do this anymore.
They can't sit by and rely on Democrats to self-destruct in 2012.
What worked to create this landslide yesterday will not work in 2012.
Republicans are going to have to earn the trust of the American people.
Marco Rubio, from whom you'll hear in just a moment, has this exactly right.
We're past photo ops.
The country needs results.
Deficit has to be cut.
Taxes cannot be raised.
Taxes must be reduced to spark growth.
We don't argue in the margins about earmarks.
We just don't do them.
Waiting for Democrats to destroy themselves was last year's plan.
It will not work going forward.
Now look at me, folks.
Look at me.
Listen to me.
We simply cannot wait any longer for the Democrats to destroy themselves because when they destroy themselves, they take us and the country with them.
As has happened the last two years.
We've had enough.
We've had enough of letting them destroy themselves.
Because when they do, they take us and the country with them.
All this talk of compromise, all this talk of bipartisanship, you know what that's geared to?
All of this talk of compromise and bipartisanship is geared to one thing and one thing only, and that is getting the GOP to shoulder the blame for the things Obama implements by executive fiat from his bipartisan deficit commission.
That's what this is all about.
Do not forget, the Deficit Commission in a month is going to make some recommendations.
And they're going to have VAT tax increases, other kind of tax increases.
You wait and see.
The deficit's a monster.
The deficit's a crisis.
Elected officials have washed their hands of it.
The Blue Ribbon Committee is going to come forth with its suggestions.
All this talk of compromise, all this talk of bipartisanship is geared to getting Republicans to go along with whatever Alan Simpson and Irksome Bowles have to say next month.
He's going to point to higher taxes, new taxes, VAT tax, reductions in Social Security and Medicare, and he'll say they can't blame me.
They voted for it too.
It's a bipartisan commission.
And don't get caught up in earmarks.
I know earmarks, they're a trap.
If we get rid of earmarks, and this is where Obama's offering to compromise, let me tell you what, if we agree with him to get rid of earmarks, big whoop.
If we get rid of earmarks, we get rid of about one half of 1% of spending.
Earmarks were a big McCain issue.
That's right, my boy.
That's right.
In earmarks, earmarks, federal spending is over the top in earmarks.
Right, in earmarks.
And we've ended one half of 1% or less of federal spending.
Fine, so get rid of earmarks.
But earmarks are a side issue, and the fact that Obama brought them up makes it a side issue.
He would love to get compromised on earmarks.
The Republicans ought to say, ain't no big deal.
You want to compromise there?
Fine, but that doesn't even scratch the surface of what needs to be done.
But folks, look, I cannot emphasize for you enough.
There's another thing happening today.
The Federal Reserve in 45 minutes is going to have a meeting, and they're going to talk about quantitative easing to QE2.
And I'll tell you what's going to happen.
The Federal Reserve, if the best guessers are right, is going to inject $500 billion into the hands of certain people to continue to buy equities and stocks.
The objective is going to be to create a little inflation.
This will give the appearance of economic growth.
$500 billion at least, QE2.
We're going to print money, and they're going to announce it at 2.15 this afternoon.
QE2, quantitative spend money, deficit commission in December.
All this talk of compromise is to force Republicans to go along with whatever the Commission says.
Well, I had a chance to listen to just a little bit of the Obama press conference.
Jake Tapper, ABC, asked Obama about the compromise that he might make on extending the Bush tax cuts.
Right now, of course, tax cuts will eliminate, we stop for everybody, $250,000 or more, and maybe everybody's taxes will be raised.
But believe me, there are no tax cuts on the table.
And Jake Tapper said, would you maybe compromise and say people who make a million dollars a year will not see their tax increase or tax decrease, tax cut, sunset?
And I started thinking, where does all this talk of rich equaling $250,000 a year, a million a year?
Where's all this start?
What right does Obama have to sit there and proclaim that people who earn X are going to be punished with Y. People who earn less than X won't be punished with Y?
You notice how easy it is to fall into the premise trap that the left sets.
Looked at within the prism of liberty and freedom, as our founding documents spell out the Declaration of the Constitution.
All of a sudden, I mean, nowhere in any of our founding documents was it ever said that people earning X would be punished for it.
It was never said in our founding documents that people earning X would share a greater burden of funding the government than people who didn't.
Where does all this talk start?
Because all this is nothing more than a direct attack on liberty, a direct attack on freedom, and it creates class envy and resentment and anger between the classes, between people of different income groups.
So all of a sudden, we're faced with the possibility here of the Bush tax cuts ending for people who earn $250,000 a year or more.
Why are we even discussing that in the first place?
What those people do?
What is magic?
Who sets arbitrarily this figure of $250,000 a year?
Why are they targeted?
And look how easily people fall into the trap of debating the premise.
When the real question is, when is the federal government going to assume responsibility for the deficit spending, for the irresponsible position they've put this country in?
When are they going to be forced to reduce the behavior, to limit the behavior they are engaging in that is causing a usurpation of our liberty and freedom?
The question is not, should people who make $250,000 or $500,000 or $1 million, for some reason, pay a higher burden of supporting the folly and the irresponsibility of people like Barack Obama and most people in government.
Why are we even debating the premise if we really believe in liberty, if we really believe in freedom, Why do we acknowledge a premise that states the successful are going to get punished?
The successful are going to pay the price.
Where is it written that the people who create the problem get to demand that people who had nothing to do with creating the problem solve it?
But first, get blamed for it.
Because that's really what's happening here.
People who are making $250,000 or $500,000 or a million, according to people like Barack Obama, and in fact, most people in Washington are somehow to blame for our deficit.
Somehow to blame for this out-of-control spending.
Somehow to blame for this generational theft.
What did they do?
What did the people earning $250,000 do to create this problem?
What did the people who earn $1 million do to create the problem?
What did the people who earned $500,000 a year do?
What have they done that has resulted in this irresponsibility in Washington?
Nothing.
The people who earn $250,000 or $500,000 or a million are in fact the people who are investing in this country and the private sector, hiring other people, producing products and services that allow for the country's economy to grow and for people to have jobs and to earn higher wages.
The federal government, the state government, cannot and does not create wealth.
All it can do is destroy it.
All it can do is confiscate it.
And what we're doing is discussing the proper level of servitude.
What is your price?
What are you going to have to pay for the irresponsibility and for the misnamed, the maligned, the stupid, the incorrect policies of liberals like Barack Obama?
What level of servitude will you have to bear the responsibility for something you had nothing to do with?
At what level are we going to proclaim you are more guilty than another citizen based on how much you earn?
Where in our founding documents, where in natural law, where in the Constitution are these principles written?
So when Jake Tapper stands up, are you willing to compromise, Mr. President?
Are you willing to compromise?
Maybe go $500,000 a year.
They get to keep the Bush tax cut.
Maybe a million.
And Obama, as the all-knowing, the all-whatever, well, you know, oh, think about it.
As though he has any right to?
Who is Barack Obama to be able to say that any citizen in this country has to pay more to support his mistakes because of what they earn?
And why do so many of us fall into the trap of thinking, yeah, that's fair?
Why are so many people willing accidentally, purposefully, to squander and give up their liberty and freedom so that they do not have to feel the guilt?
What is the price of your freedom?
You know, it used to be that Americans would give up their lives before they would give up their freedom.
Americans would give up their lives before other people would have to give up their freedom.
Americans would give their lives so that others might be free.
Now, who made Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or you, any Democrat, I don't care any, who made them the decider on what anybody should make and then what level of taxation they should pay?
Who made them the deciders on what we should eat?
Who made them the decider what kind of light bulbs we have in our homes?
Who made them the deciders on the kind of car we should drive?
Who made them the deciders on what kind of house we live in?
Who made them the deciders of when and where we can and can't turn our lights on?
Who made them the deciders of who loses how much of their freedom?
Who gave them that power?
It doesn't come from the Constitution.
The Constitution does not say the Democrat Party gets to decide which car people drive, which light bulb they have, what foods they can and can't eat, and what lights they can't turn off or on at what time of year.
The Constitution does not say that the Democrat Party gets to decide any of this.
The Constitution does not envision this kind of usurpation of freedom.
The Constitution does not envision nor allow for this kind of invasion of private property rights or overall liberty or freedom.
It has to have been a political party looking at the Constitution and being unhappy with what it says, ignoring it in order to implement their policy.
So now we have a guy who is the least qualified in any room he walks into being asked a question by an equally incompetent reporter.
Mr. President, are you willing to compromise?
They say people who earn $500,000 a year will be able to keep more of what they earn.
Will you even go as high as $1 million?
And I'm watching this.
Who the hell are either of you people to decide this?
How did I end up as an American with a guy who doesn't even like my country telling me how I have to live?
How did that happen?
How did I end up with a guy who does not even respect the founding documents to this country?
How did I end up?
How do we all end up with that kind of guy telling us how immoral and unjust we are?
How did this happen?
It happens because people, for whatever reason, are willing to sacrifice and maybe not even know what's happening little bits of their freedom and liberty, now and then under the auspices of it's a good cause or it's in the name of compassion, fairness.
Well, I want somebody to tell me what is fair about one incompetent having the right to systematically destroy my country.
I want to know where the fairness is in that.
I want to know Why in hell anybody is even thinking about, much less talking about, compromising with this man?
I want to know why anybody who believes in the Constitution wants to discuss compromising individual freedom or liberty with this man.
Because that's what the compromise is.
When people say that we must compromise with Obama, we are saying we must compromise on our freedom.
A lot of you have read books by Anne Rand.
Some of you pronounce it Ayn Rand.
I don't care.
She asked a question once on compromise.
Where do you compromise between food and poison?
That's a little better than saying, where do you compromise between good and evil?
Because evil sometimes differs from person to person, but poison's poison.
So where do you compromise with food and poison?
Oh yeah, okay, you think I should eat arsenic, but I don't want that much.
You give me a little arsenic.
Because some global warming scientists said I can tolerate a little bit of it.
But any more than that, and my death might cause the planet to warm.
So where is this?
You got a boot on your neck.
Where do you compromise with it?
Move the boot to my shoulder, please.
Did he just say this?
I'm being told here that Obama just said I reject the idea my policies have taken the country in reverse.
Now, let me tell you something, President Obama.
You can reject it all you want, but you've done it.
And we know you're happy you've done it.
You might want people to think you're not happy about the direction the country is going, but if you really were unhappy about it, you'd do something to stop it.
And instead, you're doubling down on it.
You reject the idea your policies have taken the country in reverse?
Where the hell have your policies taken us?
You happily preside over a nation in decline.
You have told the world, no longer will the U.S. population lead the world economy.
It ain't going to happen anymore.
I must take a brief time out.
I realize I haven't even, I've been wanting to play Marco Rubio for you for a while.
We'll get to that.
And I got to get some phone calls too.
But I just had that thought hit me.
I don't know why, but I'm listening to these two guys discuss $250,000, $500,000 million dollars, whether or not they're exempted from a tax increase.
I said, what in the hell were you talking about here?
You realize this is Obama's first press conference in months.
Now, what does that tell you?
This is his first press conference in months.
What does that say about Obama's arrogance, his lack of any interest in hearing from others?
He doesn't even care about his ideas being tested or even questioned.
You know, he didn't even want to hear.
He is irritated when Jake Tapper.
He's irritated when his minions stand up.
He doesn't even want to talk to them.
He doesn't even want to listen to his state-controlled media.
Here is Stacy somewhere in California.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hey, Ross, it's Stacy in Georgia.
Thank you, Georgia.
I'm sorry.
We got this stupid, stupid computer.
I can't tell the difference between a C and a G.
Oh, it's okay.
But listen.
It's our insurance adjuster.
I'm sorry.
Welcome.
The only way Mr. Boehner is going to get in my good graces is to come out and announce that Pelosi's next office is going to be the closet where she stores her broom.
I am so ticked.
And I felt great last night until his speech.
And the last 12 hours have been a nightmare.
Wait a minute now.
What was it about Boehner's speech that you didn't like?
When he starts talking about working with the other side, Rush, we won't last two more years.
We are dying.
As we speak, we are dying.
And if he thinks he's going to go over there and work with that bunch of lunatics and save our hides, he is lost out of his mind.
Let's see.
I sure you understood him.
Look, I've had, yours is the first take on his speech that I've had, like yours.
I was so angry.
I mean, I was literally screaming at the computer screen because, you know, I don't know if he's just not in the guts of this whole health care thing or what the problem is, but the 8515 thing I told you about, it's coming.
They're going to have it, the regs, by the end of this month, supposedly.
Stacy, look, because I didn't tell the difference in a C and a G, I didn't know who I was going to here.
Can we call you back at the beginning of the next hour?
I have to have some more time with you then because I'm out of time right now.
Well, sure, I'll be holding two.
All right, we can hold on.
Fine.
We'll do that.
We'll be back here in just a second.
Hey, Mike, talking to Broadcast Engineer.
We might have to repeat the most recent monologue on liberty, constitution, freedom.
People listening on the web site are saying many of our affiliates are carrying Obama's press conference.
And as such, that hasn't been heard.
So we're going to have to replay that when he finishes, or maybe later in the week.
But I want people to hear that again because full-throated, full-throated defenses of liberty are seldom heard.
▲
Export Selection